Tag: vaccine side effects

***Our goal is to compile a comprehensive list of the valid scientific research behind vaccine safety and side effects. We will publish comments that include links to relevant studies from their direct sources (not media articles or opinion). Let’s empower mothers and patients to make educated decisions. Before you vaccinate, read the science.***

Study: For 1 in 168 children, vaccines cause side effects so severe that they require an ER visit.

Analysis: SIDs and Infant Mortality Rates Regressed Against Number Of Vaccine Doses Routinely Given “A high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates…”

Study: Rotovirus linked to fatal intestinal disorder in 1 in every 4670 infants. “There was also an increase in the risk of intussusception after the second dose of the vaccine… The strong association between vaccination with RRV-TV and intussusception among otherwise healthy infants supports the existence of a causal relation.”

Study: “The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI. A 1% increase in vaccination was associated with an additional 680 children having AUT or SLI. Neither parental behavior nor access to care affected the results, since vaccination proportions were not significantly related (statistically) to any other disability or to the number of pediatricians in a U.S. state. The results suggest that although mercury has been removed from many vaccines, other culprits may link vaccines to autism.”

Study: “The related and damaging effect of exposure to high levels of mercury… a viable alternative explanation for the occurrence of regressive autism. The evidence indicates there is alteration to chromosome structure and/or function.”

Analysis: Explanation of why some children are at greater risk of developing autism after vaccines. “The evidence suggests that the abnormal sulfation chemistry, limited thiol availability, and decreased GSH reserve capacity could explain why the adverse effects of TM are greater in a subpopulation of children with this susceptibility…”

Study: Autistic children have difficulty excreting heavy metals like mercury, as evidenced by significantly lower levels of mercury in their hair. This points to a genetic susceptibility to autism in children who cannot effectively detox vaccine toxins.

Regressional Analysis: Rise in autism coincides perfectly with rise in vaccines. “The relationship between the proportion of children who received the recommended vaccines by age 2 years and the prevalence of autism (AUT) or speech or language impairment (SLI) in each U.S. state from 2001 and 2007 was determined. A positive and statistically significant relationship was found: The higher the proportion of children receiving recommended vaccinations, the higher was the prevalence of AUT or SLI.”

Study: Adverse events after vaccines containing adjuvants linked to autism and autoimmune conditions. “A traditional infectious disease vaccine is a preparation of live attenuated, inactivated or killed pathogen that stimulates immunity. Vaccine immunologic adjuvants are compounds incorporated into vaccines to enhance immunogenicity. Adjuvants have recently been implicated in the new syndrome named ASIA autoimmune/inflammatory syndrome induced by adjuvants…. The most frequent clinical findings were pyrexia 68%, arthralgias 47%, cutaneous disorders 33%, muscle weakness 16% and myalgias 14%. Three patients had diagnosis of Guillain-Barre syndrome, one patient had Adult-Still’s disease 3 days after vaccination. A total of 76% of the events occurred in the first 3 days post-vaccination. Two patients with previous autoimmune disease showed severe adverse reactions with the reactivation of their illness… Vaccines containing adjuvants may be associated with an increased risk of autoimmune/inflammatory adverse events following immunization.

Study: Subtle DNA changes and the overuse of vaccines in autism. “There is a compelling argument that the occurrence of regressive autism is attributable to genetic and chromosomal abnormalities, arising from the overuse of vaccines, which subsequently affects the stability and function of the autonomic nervous system and physiological systems… This article explores the issues and concludes that sensory dysfunction and systemic failure, manifested as autism, is the inevitable consequence arising from subtle DNA alteration and consequently from the overuse of vaccines.”

“Maybe the problem isn’t mothers who don’t believe in science; maybe the problem is that medical schools have stopped teaching the science to doctors.”

Back when my first baby was born, I believed all vaccines worked. I believed all vaccines were safe. When I took my firstborn to the doctor for a routine set of infant vaccines, I had a simple question for my pediatrician. I’d recently read a study revealing that babies who receive the rotavirus vaccine were more likely to suffer an intestinal disorder called intestinal intussusception in which their intestines collapse into each other. The condition is painful and deadly. I expected that our pediatrician would easily put my new-mom fears to rest. Since rotavirus is not considered deadly in first world countries with access to clean water, but intussusception is considered deadly or at least permanently disabling, I assumed he could explain why the rotavirus vaccine was so important, despite its risks. But when I mentioned the study to our pediatrician, he did not even know the study existed. When he saw my surprise, he cursorily skimmed the article I was holding and then announced that it was “hogwash.” I wanted to believe him, but he seemed uncomfortable, like a child who doesn’t want to answer his mother’s questions. If he had been well versed in the science of vaccines, I probably would have trusted him, but now I was suddenly aware that I had read more studies about vaccine safety than our pediatrician. I decided to hold off on the rotavirus vaccine and I took my eight-week-old infant home. Back at home, I dug deeper into the research—and found much, much more disturbing information on vaccines.

At least a dozen of my closest friends are doctors who have graduated from top American medical schools. I’ve spoken with many of them about their medical education. I have learned that mainstream medical schools teach their students very little about preventive health, but spend entire semesters teaching techniques to ensure “patient compliance.” Courses on patient compliance, sometimes called patient “adherence” or “capacitance,” teach doctors how to convince patients to listen to them, even when patients voice serious concerns about the doctors’ recommendations. This seems like a generally dangerous practice and a poor use of time during medical school, when there is so much to learn in such a short time. Why all this focus on patient compliance?

What many medical students don’t realize is that their education is funded by drug companies who benefit from overprescription. Most people have heard of pharmaceutical reps whose job it is to convince doctors to push specific drugs on unsuspecting patients, but did you know that those same drug companies wine and dine medical students, pay medical school professors millions of dollars each year, and begin lecturing medical students even before they are doctors?

Over the years, Harvard Medical School has received hundreds of millions of dollars from drug companies. TIME reports, “1,600 [Harvard professors] admit that either they or a family member have had some kind of business link to drug companies — sometimes worth hundreds of thousands of dollars — that could bias their teaching or research.”

Several of my pediatrician friends have told me that they are sick of mothers who don’t believe in vaccine “science,” but these same pediatricians have admitted to me that they haven’t actually read a scientific study on vaccines in years. My friends—so many of whom are intelligent, well-intentioned doctors who genuinely hope to help their patients—simply trust that their medical schools have taught them all they need to know about health.

So what do doctors learn about vaccines in medical school? Not much. A reader sent us the above screen shot of a woman taking to Instagram to complain that her roommate, a doctor, is storing live typhoid vaccine in their communal refrigerator. Most people know that live viruses are the stuff of chemical warfare, but this doctor was apparently not concerned. Why didn’t she learn how to safely store vaccines in medical school? Even the U.S. government admits, “It is the nature of living things to change, or mutate, and the organisms used in live, attenuated vaccines are no different… An attenuated microbe in the vaccine could revert to a virulent form and cause disease….”

But Pharma-funded medical schools know that if they were to teach their students about the dangers of live vaccines—including the fact that live vaccines are excreted in the mucus and feces of injected children and can even be spread to other children for days and weeks following vaccination, a phenomenon known as “shedding”—that they would be opening up a broader conversation about vaccine safety. It’s a conversation that Big Pharma and medical schools don’t wish to have.

So, instead, medical schools ignore the conversation about vaccine safety altogether. They encourage doctors to focus on “compliance,” not science.

Maybe the problem isn’t mothers who don’t believe in science; maybe the problem is that medical schools have stopped teaching the science to doctors.

Above: A medical student’s roommate complains that “Literally the only thing on [Med Student’s] side of the fridge is a live typhoid vaccine.” The medical student was never taught that vaccines should not be stored in home refrigerators.

If you want to be sure your pediatrician has your child’s best interest, this is mandatory reading. Pediatricians around the country have begun refusing to accept families who opt out of some or all vaccines. Thanks to a tip sent to Wellness & Equality by a reader, now we know why.

When my friend’s child suffered a life-threatening reaction to a vaccine a week after her first birthday, my friend assumed her pediatrician would write her a medical exemption from future vaccines. Shortly after receiving a routine set of vaccines, the happy, vibrant one-year-old spiked a 106 degree fever, began having seizures, and was hospitalized. When the unexplained “illness” passed after a week in the hospital, the little girl had lost her ability to walk. My friend describes how her daughter, who had learned to walk several months earlier at 9 months, suddenly “stumbled around like a drunk person” for weeks following the vaccines. My friend met with a team of pediatricians, neurologists, and naturopathic doctors, and they agreed: Her daughter had suffered a brain injury caused by a reaction to one of the vaccines. Hoping the injury would be temporary and that she might recover and ease her brain inflammation if they could help her small body quickly eliminate the vaccine additives that caused the reaction, my friend’s daughter underwent an intensive detoxification program overseen by a nutritionalist. Slowly, her daughter relearned to walk.

My friend is a practicing attorney who graduated from a Top 10 college. The evidence was overwhelming that her daughter’s reaction had been caused by vaccines, she told me.

But a few months later, when she took her daughter back into the pediatrician for a visit, he wanted to vaccinate her daughter again. She was baffled. Why?

After a reader sent us a link to a PDF file of Blue Cross Blue Shield’s Physician Incentive Program available online, Wellness & Equality learned that insurance companies pay pediatricians massive bonuses based on the percentage of children who are fully vaccinated by age 2.

So how much money do doctors really make from vaccines? The average American pediatrician has 1546 patients, though some pediatricians see many more. The vast majority of those patients are very young, perhaps because children transition to a family physician or stop visiting the doctor at all as they grow up. As they table above explains, Blue Cross Blue Shield pays pediatricians $400 per fully vaccinated child. If your pediatrician has just 100 fully-vaccinated patients turning 2 this year, that’s $40,000. Yes, Blue Cross Blue Shield pays your doctor a $40,000 bonus for fully vaccinating 100 patients under the age of 2. If your doctor manages to fully vaccinate 200 patients, that bonus jumps to $80,000.

But here’s the catch: Under Blue Cross Blue Shield’s rules, pediatricians lose the whole bonus unless at least 63% of patients are fully vaccinated, and that includes the flu vaccine. So it’s not just $400 on your child’s head–it could be the whole bonus. To your doctor, your decision to vaccinate your child might be worth $40,000, or much more, depending on the size of his or her practice.

If your pediatrician recommends that your child under the age of 2 receive the flu vaccine–even though the flu vaccine has never been studied in very young children and evidence suggests that the flu vaccine actually weakens a person’s immune system over the long term–ask yourself: Is my doctor more concerned with selling me vaccines to keep my child healthy or to send his child to private school?

Update 4/30/2017: After Wellness & Equality published this article, Blue Cross Blue Shield locked online access to their incentive program and then removed the page altogether. Clearly this incentive program was never intended to be public knowledge and created a bit of PR issue for them. Fortunately, another website managed to save the entire BCBS incentive program booklet and has published it in entirety online… You can read it here: Blue Cross Blue Shield Physician Incentive Program

Do mandatory vaccines save lives and protect infants who are too young to be vaccinated? Or, as so many mothers continue to ask, could mandatory vaccines actually increase infant mortality? Read on to learn about the major study that found “a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates…”

The correlation between vaccines and SIDS is high enough that the CDC has been forced to acknowledge it. The current CDC website reads, “Babies receive many vaccines when they are between 2 to 4 months old. This age range is also the peak age for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), or infant death that cannot be explained. The timing of the 2 month and 4 month shots and SIDS has led some people to question whether they might be related….” (Source: CDC).

The CDC goes on to list a small number of studies that claim to disprove the link, but there are many more studies (a few are listed here, but not listed on the CDC website) that do find a connection. Like this one: “Infant Mortality Rates Regressed Against Number Of Vaccine Doses Routinely Given: Is There A Biochemical Or Synergistic Toxicity?”The study authors found “a high statistically significant correlation between increasing number of vaccine doses and increasing infant mortality rates.” You can read the full analysis here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3170075/

Here’s a screenshot of the analysis:

Infant mortality rates regressed against number of vaccine doses routinely given: Is there a biochemical or synergistic toxicity?

To further corroborate this finding, a 2007 case study documents the death of 3.5 month old twin girls at the exact same time 2 days after their DTaP and Hep B vaccines. The cause of death was unknown, so it was termed Simultaneous Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Simultaneous SIDS is an exceptionally rare event, so the fact that both twins died at the same time in the 48 hours following a routine set of vaccinations almost certainly implicates the vaccines in the twins’ deaths.

In fact, the correlation between SIDS and infant death is playing out here in the United States. Recently, California joined Mississippi and West Virginia to legally require childhood vaccines by eliminating parents’ rights to opt out of any vaccines. The law mandates vaccines against “any disease deemed appropriate by the department,” including chickenpox, a mild childhood illness that the UK refuses to add to their schedule due toevidence that the chickenpox vaccine increases adult cases of the far more serious and painful disease shingles. (Source: NHS Scotland.)

Has the law helped improve the health of children in Mississippi or West Virginia? Let’s take a look….

Among all 50 states, Mississippi has the #1 HIGHEST rate of infant death before age 1. Yes, that’s right: Mississippi ranks LAST place (#50 out of 50) in keeping infants alive. A Washington Post article acknowledges, “Overall, the residents of Mississippi are the unhealthiest in the country.”

A Daily Beast article praising Mississippi’s vaccine laws is titled, “Mississippi: Last In Everything, First In Vaccines.” The connection between being FIRST in vaccines and LAST in ALL other markers of children’s health is not lost on everyone, however. The Daily Beast article mentions a letter to the editor in which Lindey Magee, co-director of the group, Mississippi Parents for Vaccine Rights (MPVR), writes that, “Mississippi families are being exploited for its reputation of ignorance and lack of education.”

Similarly, West Virginia also has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the country, just a few spaces away from Mississippi.

The current slew of American vaccines are some of the least effective, least regulated vaccines in history, but even if they were effective, most parents are less concerned with mild rashes like measles and far more concerned with keeping their children alive.

As anyone who has researched vaccine science knows, NO credible studies have demonstrated that higher rates of vaccination in comparable populations saves children’s lives and improves their long-term well-being.

So why is California following the lead of two states with the highest infant mortality rates in our entire country?

That’s a question for California’s state lawmakers, many of whom regularly accept money from the pharmaceutical companies who will benefit from the new mandatory vaccine law.

I believe in the goodness of people, so I believe your doctor probably has good intentions. Just like the generations of doctors before him or her. Just like the doctors a few decades ago, who told their patients that smoking cigarettes was perfectly safe, even good for your health. Those cigarette-prescribing doctors pointed their patients to the body of published “science” that supported the safety of smokingat the time.

Had you asked your OBGYN back in the 1940s, 50s, 60s, or 70s how to reduce your chance of miscarriage, your doctor would have told you to take diethylstilbestrol (DES) during your pregnancy, a drug that caused cancer in ten million daughters born to mothers who listened to their doctors. Doctors told their patients that DES was safe and the “science” said DES was safe; DES was recalled after 37 years on the market.

Had you asked your doctor how to lose weight between 1973 and 1997, your doctor would have helpfully written you a prescription for Fen-Phen, a drug that caused massive heart attacks in patients for almost three decades. Fen-Phen remained on the market for 24 years before it was recalled.

Had you asked your doctor how to lower your cholesterol in 2000, he would have prescribed Baycol, a drug whose side effects killed tens of thousands of people in just a few short years. Baycol was recalled only after 100,000 people were killed.

Had you asked your doctor how to heal arthritis pain in the early 2000s, he would have prescribed Vioxx, a Merck drug. Vioxx was recalled after damaging the hearts and cardiovascular systems of more than 140,000 people.

Had you complained of inflammation to your doctor in 2005, he would have prescribed Bextra, a Pfizer drug that caused heart attacks, strokes, and fatal skin conditions. After Bextra was recalled, Pfizer’s subsidiary admitted to “intent to defraud or mislead” with their promotion of the drug.

Had you sought treatment for Type 2 diabetes in 2000, your doctor would have prescribed Rezulin, a drug that was found to increase hepatitis cases. When one doctor did voice concerns about Rezulin’s safety, the FDA fired him. The drug was only pulled after overwhelming evidence showed that it was dangerous–at a time that was already too late for many people who had been hurt by it.

Did you know that doctors used to prescribe tobacco cigarettes to prevent illness? Physicians played an integral role in the promotion of smoking. Those cigarette-promoting doctors were probably decent people who simply believed in the “science” of the time. Those doctors, with the best of intentions, believed they were helping their patients.

In the year 2016, if you take a healthy newborn to an American doctor, your doctor will recommend injecting your baby with 49 doses of vaccines containing a cocktail of known toxins, including aluminum, formaldehyde, MSG, aborted fetal cells, cow cells, chick embryo cells, monkey kidney cells, and some of today’s most common childhood allergens. Your doctor might even mention the “science” that supports the safety of such a schedule, but the truth is that no prior generation has ever received this number of vaccines at such a young age. Zero long-term studies have examined the safety of the schedule. In the same way that we allowed cigarette manufacturers to fund and interpret the “science” of cigarette safety, our current system allows vaccine manufacturers to fund, oversee, and interpret the “science” of vaccine safety.

If you listen to your doctor and allow him to vaccinate your baby with a vaccine full of ingredients you haven’t researched, and then you call your doctor a few hours later because you’re concerned about your baby’s reaction, your doctor may tell you that nonstop crying, fevers, and even seizures requiring hospitalization are a normal response to those vaccines. This generation of American children is the first to experience a new “normal” when it comes to health: more autoimmune conditions than ever before, 1 in 42 boys diagnosed with autism, never-ending rashes, rampant obesity, incessant illnesses, and severe, lifelong allergies that many will never outgrow.

One day, with the 20/20 hindsight of history, we will look back on the vaccine debate in the United States and we will understand it more clearly.

Until then, you can trust your doctor. But when you choose whether to trust your doctor without doing your own research, remember that your doctor, like millions of doctors throughout history, is only human.

In 2014, Brazilian officials recommended that all pregnant women receive the Tdap vaccine. For the first time in the country’s history, thousands of pregnant Brazilian women received the Tdap vaccine. A few months later, in 2015, news outlets began reporting that Brazil was experiencing an unprecedented rise in the number of cases of newborns with a neurodevelopmental disorder known as microcephaly.

Officials quickly named a culprit: mosquitoes carrying the Zika virus. But when officials were pressed to provide evidence of the link between birth defects and the Zika virus, a little-known pathogen that has been considered harmless since its discovery in the 1940s, they came up short. Even the mainstream media, including Reuters and the BBC, reported on the lack of a scientific link.

At best, officials could only suggest a “correlation.” Still, they ploughed forward with a new message: “Postpone pregnancy until we can sell you a new vaccine that will protect against Zika.”

The rise in cases of microcephaly in Brazil may be correlated with a recent increase in cases of Zika virus, but it’s just as heavily correlated with the rising trend of Brazilian pregnant women receiving the Tdap vaccine.

Could the Tdap vaccine, which has been in widespread use around the world—including in the United States—be responsible for Brazil’s many cases of microcephaly? If the Tdap vaccine were connected to microcephaly, wouldn’t there be just as many cases of microcephaly in the U.S.?

FACT: Rates of microcephaly are currently higher in the United States, where the Tdap vaccine is routinely administered to pregnant women, than in Brazil.Each year, approximately 25,000 American mothers give birth to babies with microcephaly. For many mothers in the United States, microcephaly is nothing new. Since Brazil began recommending the Tdap vaccine to pregnant women, rates of microcephaly in Brazil are quickly catching up to U.S. rates. (In the wake of its microcephaly crisis, Brazil has reported less than 4,000 of microcephaly for its population of 200.4 million. Compare that 25,000 new cases each year in the U.S. population of 318.9 million.)

FACT: Pertussis vaccines have long been associated with reports of brain swelling, brain damage, and death in infants and children. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) database is full of these reports. Do a quick search for incidents related to both Tdap and DTaP (the name of the vaccine administered to children).

FACT: The safety of administering the Tdap vaccine to pregnant women has never been studied.

What’s the bottom line? No one is suggesting that EVERY pregnant women infected with Zika will have a baby with microcephaly. And no one is suggesting that EVERY pregnant woman who received the Tdap vaccine will have a baby with microcephaly.

Timing and genetics play an important role as well.

But you should know the facts.

So how can we determine whether the 2014 introduction of the Tdap vaccine to Brazilian women is the cause of the 2015 rise in cases of microcephaly?

That question can be answered by studies that simply examine the safety of administering vaccines to pregnant women, but Big Pharma and their lobbyists are too powerful to allow studies that could hurt their bottom line. Even the package inserts of vaccines that doctors are legally administering to pregnant women admit that no studies have ever examined the safety of administering vaccines to pregnant women. If you’re pregnant, ask your doctor to provide you with the package inserts of any vaccines he or she recommends. Administering vaccines to pregnant women is generally considered an “off-label” use of vaccines.

Conclusion: With the country’s souring rates of microcephaly, there’s no doubt that something strange and sad is happening in Brazil. Cases of microcephaly are likely the result of a combination of factors or co-factors (including genetic predisposition, in-utero exposure to harmful chemicals or pesticides, plus a variety of maternal complications) but recommending that pregnant women receive additional vaccines is a simplistic answer to a complex problem—and it could make the situation even worse for generations to come.